http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
THE coming debate on campaign finance "reforms" that would vastly expand government regulation of political communication
will measure just how much jeopardy the First Amendment, and hence political freedom, faces. Recent evidence is ominous.

In 1997, 38 senators voted to amend the First Amendment to empower government to impose "reasonable" restrictions on
political speech. Dick Gephardt has said, "What we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our
desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy." Bill Bradley has proposed suppressing issue advocacy ads of
independent groups by imposing a 100 percent tax on such ads. John McCain has said he wishes he could constitutionally ban
negative ads -- ads critical of politicians.

The basis of political-speech regulation is the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. Bradley Smith, a member of the Federal
Election Commission and author of "Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform," calls the act "one of the most
radical laws ever passed in the United States." Because of it, for the first time Americans were required to register with the
government before spending money to disseminate criticism of its officeholders.

Liberals eager for more regulation of political speech should note the pedigree of their project. The act's first enforcement
action came in 1972, when some citizens organized as the National Committee for Impeachment paid $17,850 to run a New
York Times ad criticizing President Nixon. His Justice Department got a court to enjoin the committee from further spending to
disseminate its beliefs. Justice said the committee had not properly registered with the government and the committee's activities
might "affect" the 1972 election, so it was barred from spending more than $1,000 to communicate its opinions. After the
expense of reaching a federal appellate court, the committee defeated the FEC, but only because the committee had not
engaged in "express advocacy" by explicitly urging people to vote for or against a specific candidate.

In 1976 some citizens formed the Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Committee, which spent $135 to distribute the
voting record of a congressman who displeased them. Two years later this dissemination of truthful information brought a suit
from the Federal Election Commission's speech police, who said the committee's speech was illegal because the committee had
not fulfilled all the registering and reporting the campaign act requires of those who engage in independent expenditure
supporting or opposing a candidate. The committee won in a federal appellate court, but only because it had not engaged in
"express advocacy."

In 1998, with impeachment approaching, Leo Smith, a Connecticut voter, designed a Web site urging support for Clinton and
defeat of Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) When the campaign of Johnson's opponent contacted Smith, worried that his site put
him and their campaign in violation of the act, he sought a commission advisory opinion.

Although Smith neither received nor expended money to create this particular Web site, the commission said the law's definition
of a political expenditure includes a gift of "something of value," and the commission noted that his site was "administered and
maintained" by his personal computer, which cost money. And that the "domain name Web site" was registered in 1996 for
$100 for two years and for $35 a year thereafter. And "costs associated with the creation and maintaining" of the site are
considered an expenditure because the site uses the words that bring on the speech police -- it "expressly advocates" the
election of one candidate and the defeat of another.

The commission advised Smith that if his site really was independent, he would be "required to file reports with the Commission
if the total value of your expenditures exceeds $250 during 1998." If his activity were not truly independent, his "expenditures"
would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution to Johnson's opponent. Smith ignored the commission, which, perhaps
too busy policing speech elsewhere, let him get away with free speech.

Today Internet pornography is protected from regulation, but not Internet political speech. And campaign finance "reformers"
aspire to much, much more regulation because, they say, there is "too much money in politics."

Actually, too much money that could fund political discourse is spent on complying with the act's speech regulations. To cover
compliance costs, the Bush and Gore campaigns combined raised more than $15 million. And Bradley Smith notes that
because of the law's ambiguities and the commission's vast discretion, litigation has become a campaign weapon: Candidates
file charges to embarrass opponents and force them to expend resources fending off the speech police. Consider this legacy of
"reforms" during this month's debate about adding to
them.